Tweet
Crossing mountain ranges and rivers
In Civ 2 units have basically no difficulties crossing a river or a mountain range. In real life they used to be safe borderlines which could not be crossed just like that. Think about the Roman empire, for example. The empire had hudreds of kilometers of "natural" borders, such as the river Danube, which couldn't be crossed by the barbarians. However, in Civ 2 these kind of natural borders are of no use. Any unit can simply walk over them without suffering any damage or penalties.
I suggest the movement modifier for mountains should be a lot higher and a unit crossing a mountain range should also suffer SEVERE damage, which would indicate the loss of men due to harsh conditions. Roads should of course decrease the damage suffered, but on the other hand building roads on mountain squares, especially in ancient/medieval period, should be very time (and settler!) consuming, a lot harder than it is in Civ 2.
As for rivers, you simply can not cross the Mississippi without a bridge or a boat. Of course you can send 1000 ancient warriors to swim over it and see how many of them makes it to the other side...
One kind of solution could be to make the rivers on the maps more realistic. The biggest rivers, The Amazon and the like, should be displayed with ocean squares. This would be realistic. There should also be two separate river terrain types. Small rivers could be crossed with small movement and damage penalties. Crossing large rivers would be harder, and the unit crossing them should suffer movement and damage penalties similiar to those that you suffer when crossing mountains. The bridge building advace could also be divided to bridge building, which would allow you to build a bridge over a small river, and advanced bridge building would allow you to build bridges over large rivers. Those HUGE bridges, like the one that connects Sweden and Denmark, should require advances like railroad, steel and the like.
------------------
Don't mess with me or my pet polar bear shall tear you to shreds! I'm a friend of the king of the penguins, too. Respect me!
[This message has been edited by Woodmen Chief (edited July 15, 2000).]
I suggest the movement modifier for mountains should be a lot higher and a unit crossing a mountain range should also suffer SEVERE damage, which would indicate the loss of men due to harsh conditions. Roads should of course decrease the damage suffered, but on the other hand building roads on mountain squares, especially in ancient/medieval period, should be very time (and settler!) consuming, a lot harder than it is in Civ 2.
As for rivers, you simply can not cross the Mississippi without a bridge or a boat. Of course you can send 1000 ancient warriors to swim over it and see how many of them makes it to the other side...
One kind of solution could be to make the rivers on the maps more realistic. The biggest rivers, The Amazon and the like, should be displayed with ocean squares. This would be realistic. There should also be two separate river terrain types. Small rivers could be crossed with small movement and damage penalties. Crossing large rivers would be harder, and the unit crossing them should suffer movement and damage penalties similiar to those that you suffer when crossing mountains. The bridge building advace could also be divided to bridge building, which would allow you to build a bridge over a small river, and advanced bridge building would allow you to build bridges over large rivers. Those HUGE bridges, like the one that connects Sweden and Denmark, should require advances like railroad, steel and the like.
------------------
Don't mess with me or my pet polar bear shall tear you to shreds! I'm a friend of the king of the penguins, too. Respect me!
[This message has been edited by Woodmen Chief (edited July 15, 2000).]
Whoops. Sorry, I havent played CtP and didn't know. How embarrassing... 
Comment